7/21/2019 rich_b

1/197

JOB ENGAGEMENT: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH

JOB SATISFACTION, JOB INVOLVEMENT, AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

By

BRUCE LOUIS RICH

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006

7/21/2019 rich_b

2/197

Copyright 2006

by

Bruce Louis Rich

7/21/2019 rich_b

3/197

To My Family

7/21/2019 rich_b

4/197

iviv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It was a long time ago that I began this journey and like most of lifes journeys,

there are no ends, just beginnings. Although another stage of my life is unfolding, I take

this time now to reflect not on where I am going, but where I have come from. The idea

for this dissertation grew out of my own personal experiences. Engagement to me was the

inspiration, dedication, and pride that I had experienced throughout my life. It was the

driving force that enabled me to succeed in the many challenges I have faced. This

journey has been remarkable, one filled with sacrifice and accomplishments and one that

has enabled me to grow as a person.

Throughout this journey, I have not traveled alone. This work could not have been

completed without the support of my family and friends. Over the years they have been

my compass, and whenever I was lost or wondering they helped me find my way. There

are no words to express my gratitude to my parents, Michael and Joan Rich. Their

unbounded love and encouragement have always been there for me; for this I am

eternally grateful. I thank them for their patience and belief in my courage and strength to

pursue my goals. Special recognition and gratitude go to my best friend, Jenny Bergeron,

whose love and support made this work possible. I thank her for being there for me all

these years, encouraging me to forge ahead while searching for balance in my life.

Thanks go to my brother, Mark Rich, whose understanding and love make me want to be

a better brother, and to my great aunt, Philomena Rich, who began her teaching in a one-

room schoolhouse and taught me the value of education and dedication.

7/21/2019 rich_b

5/197

v

While at the University of Florida, I have been fortunate to have had the

opportunity to work with a group of exceptional colleagues who have inspired and

challenged me, including my chair, Jeffery LePine, whose questions, suggestions, and

guidance contributed immensely to the quality of this work. Others that merit special

recognition for their contributions to my development and growth as a scholar include

Timothy Judge, Larry DiMatteo, Robert Thomas, John Kammeyer-Mueller, Henry Tosi,

David Miller, David Hoch, and Amy Collbert. Special thanks and recognition go to

Nathan Podsakoff, whose advice, patience, and assistance made this work better. I thank

also Wilma Sherouse, Mitzi Calvert, and Lea King for their assistance in fulfilling my

requests throughout the years; they all made my time at the University of Florida

memorable.

This work was made possible through the assistance of Jim Murtagh, who helped

in obtaining the participation of the fire departments. Special thanks go to Ronda Griffin

and the entire staff at the Nazareth Living Facility, and to Jeffery Meston, Mark Revere,

Andy Smith, John Miguel, Bruce Varner, Regan Stilo, Bill Northcutt, Gene Prince, and

Nellie Otero, and the courageous men and women of the Novato Fire Protection District,

Mountain View Fire Department, Santa Rosa Fire Department, and Gainesville Fire

Rescue, who gave of themselves to participate in this research. To them I offer my

sincere gratitude and appreciation.

Finally, love and thanks go to Cheyenne, Dakota, Zo, and Argos, who every day

remind me that I am loved.

7/21/2019 rich_b

6/197

vivi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................8The Meaning of Engagement...................................................................................8Dimensions of Engagement ...................................................................................12

Physical Dimension .......................................................................................12Cognitive Dimension .....................................................................................13Emotional Dimension ....................................................................................15Job Engagement as a Higher-Order Factor....................................................23

Construct Validity of a New Job Engagement Scale.............................................29

Discriminant Validity of Job Engagement.............................................................30Job Involvement.............................................................................................30

The Meaning of Job Involvement. ........................................................ 30Measurement of Job Involvement......................................................... 33Distinction Between Job Involvement and Work Centrality. ............... 34

Job Satisfaction ..............................................................................................43Intrinsic Motivation .......................................................................................46

Predictive Validity of Job Engagement .................................................................49Task Performance. .........................................................................................50Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. ..........................................................51Counterproductive Behaviors. .......................................................................55

Withdrawal Behaviors. ..................................................................................57Kahns Antecedents of Job Engagement ...............................................................60

Hypothesized Additional Antecedents of Job Engagement...........................61Personality............................................................................................. 61Perceived Organizational Support. ....................................................... 64

7/21/2019 rich_b

7/197

vii

3 METHOD ..................................................................................................................67Study 1 ...................................................................................................................70Study 2 ...................................................................................................................75Study 3 ...................................................................................................................88

4 DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................122

APPENDIX

A STUDY 2 PARTICIPANT SURVEY .....................................................................137

B STUDY 3 PARTICIPANT SURVEY .....................................................................143

C STUDY 3 SUPERVISOR SURVEY.......................................................................149

D STUDY 3 MEDIATION RESULTS .......................................................................152

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................165

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................184

7/21/2019 rich_b

8/197

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1 Key Dimensions of Kahns Job Engagement Scale .................................................67

2 Initial Items of Job Engagement Scale .....................................................................69

3 Study 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations ...............................................73

4 Study 1. Confirmatory Factor Loadings...................................................................74

5 Correlations Among the Three Dimensions of Job Engagement .............................74

6 Comparison of A Priori Job Engagement Factor Structure......................................83

7 Study 2. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations ...............................................87

8 Study 2. Confirmatory Factor Loadings...................................................................88

9 Study 2. Correlations Among the Three Latent Variables ofJob Engagement .......................................................................................................88

10 Comparison of A Priori Job Attitudes Factor Structure.........................................101

11 Study 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistencies,and Intercorrelations...............................................................................................110

12a Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagement ..............................114

12b Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagement ..............................115

12c Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagement ..............................116

12d Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagement ..............................117

13a Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagementand the UWES........................................................................................................118

13b Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagementand the UWES........................................................................................................119

7/21/2019 rich_b

9/197

ix

13c Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagementand the UWES........................................................................................................120

13d Study 3. Hierarchical Regression Results of Job Engagementand the UWES........................................................................................................121

14 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Engagement, Conscientiousness,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................153

15 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Engagement, Perceived OrganizationalSupport, and Outcomes ..........................................................................................154

16 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Engagement, Core Self-Evaluations,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................155

17 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Satisfaction, Conscientiousness,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................156

18 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Satisfaction, Perceived OrganizationalSupport, and Outcomes ..........................................................................................157

19 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Satisfaction, Core Self-Evaluations,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................158

20 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Involvement, Conscientiousness,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................159

21 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Involvement, Perceived OrganizationalSupport, and Outcomes ..........................................................................................160

22 Study 3. Mediation Results of Job Involvement, Core Self-Evaluations,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................161

23 Study 3. Mediation Results of Intrinsic Motivation, Conscientiousness,and Outcomes.........................................................................................................162

24 Study 3. Mediation Results of Intrinsic Motivation, Perceived OrganizationalSupport, and Outcomes ..........................................................................................163

25 Study 3. Mediation Results of Intrinsic Motivation, Core Self-Evaluations,

and Outcomes.........................................................................................................164

7/21/2019 rich_b

10/197

x

LIST OF FIGURESFigure page

1 Circumplex model of affect......................................................................................16

2 The two-dimensional structure of affect. .................................................................17

3 Latent model of multidimensional construct............................................................24

4 Aggregate model of multidimensional construct .....................................................25

5 Diagram of the commonalities among the three dimensions of job engagement ....27

6 Theoretical model job engagement: Antecedents and outcomes. ............................50

7 Model 1: One factor model of job engagement........................................................78

8 Model 2: Two factor model of job engagement .......................................................79

9 Model 3: Three factor model of job engagement .....................................................79

10 Model 4: Two factor model of job engagement with correlated factors ..................80

11 Model 5: Three factor model of job engagement with correlated factors ................80

12 Model 6: Second-order factor model for job engagement .......................................82

13 Confirmatory factor analysis results of the job engagement scale...........................85

14 Model 1: One factor model of overall job attitude...................................................91

15 Model 2: Four factor model of job attitudes ............................................................92

16 Model 3: Second-order factor model for job engagement with additional

underlying factors of job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation...92

17 Model 4: Job engagement correlated with job satisfaction, job involvement, andintrinsic motivation ..................................................................................................93

18 Model 5: Factor model for general job attitude factor and job engagement, jobsatisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation ...........................................94

7/21/2019 rich_b

11/197

xi

19 Model 5: Factor loadings for general job attitude factor and job engagement,job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation ...................................103

20 Model 4: Correlations of job engagement and job satisfaction, job involvement,and intrinsic motivation..........................................................................................103

21 Model 3: Factor loadings of second-order factor model for job engagement withadditional underlying factors of job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsicmotivation...............................................................................................................104

7/21/2019 rich_b

12/197

xii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the

Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

JOB ENGAGEMENT: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION AND RELATIONSHIPS WITHJOB SATISFACTION, JOB INVOLVEMENT, AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

By

Bruce Louis Rich

August 2006

Chair: Jeffery A. LePineMajor Department: Management

Job engagement has recently become a fashionable term among Human Resource

practitioners and Organizational Behavior researchers. However, academic research that

has theoretically examined job engagement at the psychological level is limited, as is

research on the nature of employee engagement, and its place among other job attitude

constructs that are used to describe employees at work. I developed and validated a new

measure of job engagement that assessed peoples engagement during role performance.

The predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of job engagement was assessed

with similar affective and cognitive work-related states, including job involvement, job

satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.

Results from confirmatory factor analysis indicated that job engagement was best

represented as a higher-order factor with three lower-order dimensions of physical,

emotional, and cognitive. Additional analyses suggested that the four job attitudes of job

engagement, job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation are distinct but

7/21/2019 rich_b

13/197

xiii

correlated attitudes. Hierarchical regression results revealed that employees who

exhibited higher levels of job engagement were rated by their supervisors as

demonstrating higher levels of task and contextual performance and lower levels of

withdrawal behaviors. Importantly, these relationships were found after controlling for

job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Specifically, job engagement

predicted an additional 3% variance in task performance, an additional 4% variance in

contextual performance, and an additional 10% variance in withdrawal behaviors.

Moreover, job engagement predicted an additional 3% variance in task performance, an

additional 6% variance in contextual performance, and an additional 7% variance in

withdrawal behaviors over and above that predicted by the Utrecht Work Engagement

Scale. I conclude with theoretical and practical implications as well as suggestions for

future research.

7/21/2019 rich_b

14/197

11

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

The return from your work must be the satisfaction which that work brings you andthe world's need of that work. With this, life is heaven, or as near heaven as youcan get. Without thiswith work you despise, which bores you, and which theworld does not needthis life is hell. (William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, 1958).

Results of a recent Gallup poll suggested that the economic impact of workers who

are not engaged in their work costs U.S. businesses an estimated $300 billion annually in

productivity losses. Moreover, this economic impact may be surpassed by the cost of

psychological and medical consequences that result from workers feelings of

disengagement, with a majority of disengaged employees reporting that their work has a

negative effect on their physical health (Gallup 2005). Despite the deleterious social and

economic impact of disengagement on organizations and their members, relatively few

academic studies have attempted to address the concept of job engagement. Perhaps more

importantly, only a few research studies have explicitly examined the relationship

between an individuals job engagement and the organizational and personal outcomes

that may result from this engagement.

A review of the extant studies that have examined job engagement demonstrates

that being engaged in ones job may lead to positive outcomes for individuals as well as

organizations. As demonstrated in a recent study of hotel and restaurant service quality

by Salanova, Agut and Peiro (2005), the employees level of job engagement, measured

by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzles-Rom, &

Bakker, 2002), predicted the overall service climate of the organization, which in turn

7/21/2019 rich_b

15/197

2

predicted employee performance and customer loyalty. Additional support for the

positive relationship between engagement and organizational and personal outcomes has

been shown in a meta-analysis by Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002). In this study,

which encompassed 7,939 business units in 36 companies, employee engagement,

measured by the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA), demonstrated true score correlations

with employee turnover of -.30, customer satisfaction .33, and profitability .17. Finally,

Colbert et al. (2004), using a modified version of the GWA scale, showed that employee

engagement was negatively related to workplace deviance, measured as the withholding

of effort (r=.22).

Although the result of these studies demonstrated that job engagement may be

positively related to desirable organizational and individual outcomes, surprisingly little

research has explicitly examined the construct validity and conceptual distinctions

between job engagement and similar affective and cognitive work-related states that may

explain the attachment people have to their work and their work motivation. As with any

new construct, it is important first to establish its place within a nomological network

(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Of the existing work attitudes that should be included in the

nomological network of job engagement are the constructs of job involvement (Brown,

1996; Kanungo, 1982; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), job satisfaction

(Locke, 1976), and intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985). Job

engagement may have relationships to organizational and individual outcomes similar to

these work attitudes. However, no published research has addressed the relationship

between these important constructs. This lack of research on job engagement is partly the

result of scholars using three markedly distinct approaches to engagement, thus

7/21/2019 rich_b

16/197

3

preventing them from reaching a consensus as to job engagements definition or

measurement.

In the extant literature, one approach to engagement has been advanced by human

resource practitioners who have developed employee engagement measures as a means

of providing consulting services to clients. Typically, these engagement surveys, which

vary by practitioner, identify the antecedent conditions of job engagement, such as the

developmental environment of an organization and the supportiveness of supervisors,

without identifying the state of employee engagement and its subsequent effects. For

example, the Gallup Workplace Audit (see Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) includes

the following items that clearly assess antecedents to employees engagement with their

jobs: In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work,

and My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. Thus,

these practitioner-based instruments fail to assess the active investment of employees

energies into role performance. Moreover, this approach offers little in the way of theory

regarding what it means to be engaged.

A second theoretical approach to engagement is advanced, most notably by

Maslach and Leiter (1997), Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001), and Schaufeli,

Salanova, Gonzles-Rom, and Bakker (2002). These researchers view engagement as

the opposite of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). From this theoretical framework,

burnout is seen as an erosion of engagement characterized by the three burnout

dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and lack of professional efficacy. Although Maslach

and Leiter (1997), and Schaufeli et al. (2002) each ground their conceptualizations of

engagement in the literature on burnout, these researchers diverge with respect to its

7/21/2019 rich_b

17/197

4

definition and measurement. Specifically, Maslach and Leiter (1997) define engagement

as the positive antipode of burnout and believe that engagement should be measured by

the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1996), with low scores

on exhaustion and cynicism and high scores on efficacy indicative of engagement.

Conversely, Schaufeli et al. (2002) view engagement and burnout as two independent but

closely related states that cannot simply be measured by the reversal of the scores on the

MBI. These researchers define engagement as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of

mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication,and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p.

74), and utilize the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) for its assessment. Recent

confirmatory factor analysesof theUWES provided some support for Schaufelis

distinction between burnout and engagement with each construct loading on separate

factors (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Despite these results, researchers have criticized Schaufelis conceptualization of

engagement. For example, Shirom (2003) has argued that the three dimensions of

engagement were not developed theoretically, but are merely representations of the

opposite of burnout. Shirom additionally criticizes the UWES because its dimensions

overlap considerably with other psychological concepts. For example, vigor includes

motivational elements (e.g., willingness to invest effort) and resilience (e.g., persistence

in the face of difficulties), absorption overlaps with psychological presence at work

(Kahn, 1992), and dedication overlaps with the major dimensions of job involvement

(Brown, 1996). Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on the UWES performed by

Salanova et al. (2003, 2005) has resulted in mixed support of this engagement measure.

Specifically, in each of these studies, two items from the vigor scale were deleted to

7/21/2019 rich_b

18/197

5

improve model fit. Moreover, the predictive and discriminative validity of the UWES has

not been demonstrated in empirical research. Taken together, these issues raise

methodological and theoretical questions related to the construct validity of the UWES.

The third approach to job engagement is one advanced by Kahn (1990; cf. also

Kahn 1992), who defined job engagement as the simultaneous employment and

expression of a person's preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections to

work and to others personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active,

full performances (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). This approach has its theoretical grounding in

role theory (Goffman, 1951, 1961; Graen, 1976), which suggested that people vary in

terms of their attachments to and absorption in their roles. As Kahn proposed, people

can use varying degrees of their selves, physically, cognitively, and emotionally, in the

roles they perform, even as they maintain the integrity of the boundaries between who

they are and the roles they occupy (Kahn, 1990, p. 692). For Kahn, behaviors that

suggest a lack of separation between people and their roles are indicative of role

embracement, while those behaviors that distance people from their roles signify role

detachment. From this in-role psychological presence, Kahn conceptualized the terms

personal engagement and personal disengagement to describe behaviors where

people include or omit their personal selves during work role performance. Ultimately, he

concluded: In engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,

cognitively, and emotionally during role performance (Kahn, 1990, p. 694).

This dissertation draws on the work of Kahn (1990) as its basis for developing a

new job engagement scale. The reasons for grounding the new engagement scale in

Kahns work are three-fold. First, Kahns theory of engagement addresses the actual

7/21/2019 rich_b

19/197

6

attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions that individuals demonstrate when they are engaged

in their role, and does not simply address the antecedents to these conditions, as do

measures developed by human resource practitioners, such as the Gallups Work Force

Audit. Secondly, Kahn conceptualized and developed engagement as a distinct construct,

and not merely as the opposite of burnout, which is the basis to the UWES developed by

Schaufeli et al. (2002). Lastly, theoretical support for Kahns tripartite conceptualization

of engagement can be found in the work of Kelman (1958), who posited three levels of

investment of personal energies into role performance, physical, cognitive and emotional,

and in the work of Campbell (1963), who defined attitudes as comprised of emotional,

cognitive, and behavioral components. Researchers have emphasized not only the role of

cognitive evaluations in attitudes, but also have included affect and behaviors as

components (Eagley & Chaiken, 1993).

Despite the theoretical support for Kahns engagement theory, researchers have not

been able to empirically identify three engagement dimensions (May, Gilson, & Harter,

2004). With all of the current interest in job engagement (see Gallup, 2005), it is

unfortunate that research on engagement has lagged so far behind. Given that there are at

least three conceptual definitions of job engagement, little progress can be expected to be

made in this area unless a unified definition of engagement is developed. Moreover,

along with a unified definition, a corresponding-construct valid measurement scale of

engagement that is conceptually and operationally distinct from job involvement (Brown,

1996; Kanungo, 1982; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), job satisfaction

(Locke, 1976) and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) must be constructed. After

these necessary foundations are established, researchers can formulate and empirically

7/21/2019 rich_b

20/197

7

scrutinize hypotheses and draw conclusions as to engagements relationship with

organizational and personal outcomes. With this in mind the primary purpose of this

dissertation is to further the theoretical and empirical work on the concept of engagement.

To advance this purpose I grounded my work in that of Kahns (1990), and suggested that

engagement is a hierarchical construct consisting of three correlated first-order

dimensions of physical, emotional and cognitive, and a single second-order factor.

Second, I developed and tested the discriminantand convergent validity of a new job

engagement scale by conceptually differentiating it from similar constructs. Finally, I

examined the antecedents, consequences, and predictive validity of engagement in an

attempt to further the understanding of this important construct. The following section

provides an in-depth review of engagement as conceptualized by Kahn (1990).

7/21/2019 rich_b

21/197

7/21/2019 rich_b

22/197

9

embracement involved an admitted or expressed attachment to the role and an active

engagement or spontaneous involvement in role activity; that is, a visible investment of

attention and effort (Goffman, 1961, p. 106). Behaviors that signify a lack of separation

between a person and a role were indicative of role embracement, whereas behaviors that

separated a person from a disdained role indicated role distance. To explain the concept,

Goffman contrasted a police officer directing rush hour traffic, dancing with his arms and

legs and blowing his whistle, as high role embracement. In contrast, a young man

expressed role distance from his merry-go-round attendant job through inattentiveness

and gestures such as yawning and mock-grimacing.

Using Goffmans view of role embracement, Kahn (1990) established a theoretical

framework to understand when and why individuals invest varying degrees of themselves

in work role performance. Through ethnographic interviews, Kahn explored engagement

and disengagement among two groups of workers: counselors at a summer camp in the

Caribbean and members of an architectural firm. Kahn explored conditions at work

where people were personally engaged, i.e., expressed and employed their personal

selves, or were disengaged and withdrew and defended their personal selves. From this,

Kahn developed a definition of engagement to include the simultaneous employment

and expression of a person's preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections

to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active,

full performances (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). For Kahn, the individuals engagement in their

role was manifested by the investment of themselves along the three dimensions. Implicit

in this definition is the notion that the individuals engagement is reflected by the

investment of personal energies into their role, which can vary according to the

7/21/2019 rich_b

23/197

10

contextual factors or requirements of the role. To illustrate this concept, Kahn described a

SCUBA diving instructor who exhibited moments of engagement via all three

dimensions during a diving expedition. The instructor employed himself physically, by

checking gear and leading the dive; cognitively, by being vigilantly aware of divers,

weather, and marine life; and emotionally, by his enthusiasm and empathy for the young

divers who were both excited and fearful.

Conversely, personal disengagement is the uncoupling of self from role and is

exhibited by a lack of physical involvement, cognitive vigilance, and emotional

investment (Kahn, 1990, p.702). These behaviors underlie what researchers have

characterized as automatic or robotic (Hochschild, 1983), burnout (Maslach, 1982),

apathetic, detached (Goffman, 1959, 1961), or effortless (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).

Kahn described an example of disengagement with ones role in the action and thoughts

of a senior architect who assigned tasks to subordinates, adopted a perfunctory approach

to work, and failed to empathize or emotionally connect with clients or draftsmen. From

these and other examples, Kahn determined that an individuals role engagement is

reflected by a dynamic relationship in which an individual invested and divested personal

energy and emotion into his or her role across the physical, emotional, and cognitive

dimensions.

As Kahn (1990, 1992) asserted, people exhibit engagement by harnessing

themselves to their role through the investment of varying degrees of personal energies

and emotions. Theoretical support for Kahns suppositions on engagement can be found

in the work of Kelman (1958), who posited that the lowest investment of personal

energies into role performance is one that was solely physical, automatic, or robotic

7/21/2019 rich_b

24/197

11

(Hochschild, 1983) and devoid of cognitive or emotional involvement. The next level of

personal investment for Kelman was that which included cognitive energies.

Traditionally, the investment of cognitive energies into role performance has been the

focus of rational theories of motivation. Under these theories (i.e., Equity Theory,

Adams, 1963, 1965; Expectancy Theory, Vroom, 1964), individuals are viewed as

rational beings who cognitively assess personal costs and benefits before taking action.

Based on cool perceptions and rational calculations, these cognitive theories are devoid

of emotion.

Kelmans highest level of motivation involved the investment of not only physical

and cognitive resources, but also involved an investment of emotions. At this level of

motivation, individuals are engaged in their work role through an emotional connection

between themselves and their role. This view is consistent with Kahns (1990), who

noted that role engagement was the highest when people were emotionally connected to

their work activity. Kahns conceptualization of engagement, as being manifested by

three dimensions, is also consistent with the theoretical tripartite definition of attitudes,

which have been categorized as comprising emotional, cognitive, and behavioral

components (Campbell, 1963). Researchers emphasize not only the role of cognitive

evaluations in attitudes, but also the affect and behaviors components as well (Eagley &

Chaiken, 1993).

By detailing the manifestation of engagement in ones role, Kahn (1990) provided a

general description of engaging emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. However, he did not

provide definitions for the three dimensions. Therefore, in the next section I will describe

in detail the three dimensions of engagement. Additionally, I will also review the extant

7/21/2019 rich_b

25/197

12

literature on the three dimensions of engagement in an effort to provide theoretical

grounding to Kahns theory of engagement.

Dimensions of Engagement

Physical Dimension

When engaged in a role, people employ and express themselves physically (Kahn

1990, p. 694). The physical dimension of engagement is manifested by the exertion of

effort in ones job. This exertion can range from lethargy (low engagement) to vigorous

physical and mental effort. Ones physical engagement is thus partly dependent on the

contextual or mental and physical requirements of the role. Kahn suggested that physical

energies can be allocated to a range of different activities, including on-task, off-task, and

self-regulation activities. However, when individuals are engaged in their role, physical

energies are directed at the accomplishment of role task.

A conceptualization of the exertion of energies into ones role that fundamentally

captures Kahns physical dimension of engagement is that of effort (Campbell &

Pritchard, 1976; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kanfer, 1990; Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen,

1980). Researchers have associated effort with three components: duration (or time

commitment), intensity (force, i.e., energy exerted per unit of time), and direction

(Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Kanfer, 1991; Naylor, et al., 1980). Prior research has

demonstrated a significant positive relationship between effort, defined as the amount of

time a person spends working on an assigned task, and performance (Blau, 1993; Brown

& Peterson, 1994; Fisher & Ford, 1998; Katerberg & Blau, 1983). Although these results

suggested that effort as time on task leads to performance, this relationship is not as direct

or linear as the relationship between effort and engagement. That is, effort conceptualized

as time spent on task fails to completely capture Kahns meaning of engagement in ones

7/21/2019 rich_b

26/197

13

role. Instead, effort as time is merely reflective of ones rolepresence and not role

engagement. Finally, there are practical limitations to measuring the physical dimension

of engagement as time on task, as many individuals work a fixed number of hours and

therefore their effort or amount of time spent on a task is beyond their control.

Kanfer, 1990 (see also Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964) proposed a

measurement of effort that taps Kahns theoretical assumptions concerning the physical

dimension of engagement. These researchers measured effort by asking how hard an

individual was trying on a task. This method of questioning is reflective of the

employees intensity level concerning their investment of personal energy into role

performance, and thus a more complete indication of their engagement with their role.

Research has shown that effort measured as intensity is significantly related to

performance (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Rasch & Tosi, 1992; Terborg & Miller, 1978).

Cognitive Dimension

Kahn (1990) suggested that engagement was manifested by the investment of

personal energies into cognitive labors. Previous research has shown that cognitive labors

are comprised of two components: 1) attention, the amount of time one spends thinking

of role task, and 2) absorption, the level of engrossment or intensity of focus on role task

(Gardner et al., 1989; Goffman, 1959, 1961; Kahn, 1990; Rothbard, 2001). As a

motivational resource of limited capacity (Kahneman, 1973; Locke & Latham, 1990), an

employees attention to role task is under the exclusive allocation and control of the

individual (March & Olsen, 1976). While working there may be multiple targets that

compete for ones limited attentional resources, including role task, supervisor,

organization, co-workers, or off-work targets such as personal and home life. Kahn

associated disengagement with the lack of attention toward ones work task. This

7/21/2019 rich_b

27/197

14

relationship is consistent with research that has associated cognitive interference with

performance decrements, whereby individuals are distracted by off-task worries, which

reduced cognitive resources available for the task (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Sarason,

Pierce, & Sarason, 1996).

Absorption, like attention, has been conceptualized as a motivational construct

(Locke & Latham, 1990) that resembles flow, the holistic sensation that people feel

when they act with total involvement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p. 36). During the flow

state, people narrow their attention to specific stimuli, and little conscious control is

necessary for their actions. Absorption is distinctly different from flow, in that flow has

been conceptualized as a unique, short-term peak experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,

1988, 1989, 1990), whereas Kahn characterized absorption as a pervasive and persistent

state of concentration and focus.

Absorption also resembles intrinsic motivation, the desire to take part in an activity

for its own sake (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1998). Tiegs, Tetrick, and

Fried (1992) associated intrinsic work motivation with work content variables (cf. task

characteristics, Hackman & Oldham, 1976), such as job autonomy, skill variety, task

significance, task identity, and job feedback. Absorption is distinctly different from

intrinsic motivation, in that intrinsic motivation is task specific and additionally calls for

a positive emotional state while absorption is neutral (Rothbard, 2001).

Attention and absorption can be theoretically linked to engagement through self-

regulation (Lee, Sheldon, & Turban, 2003), a cognitive process that determines the

transformation of motivational force into behavior and performance (Kanfer, 1990).

Through this regulation of attention on executive functions, an individual allocates effort

7/21/2019 rich_b

28/197

15

across on-task and off-task activities (Kanfer, 1990). As Gardner and colleagues

suggested, self-regulation determines what and how strongly employees think about

various objects/events/phenomena while present at their jobs. For Kahn, engagement was

indicated by the attention and absorption the individual exhibited in role activities.

Support for the relationship between attention, absorption, and engagement is found in

the work of Rothbard (2001) who operationalized engagement as attention devoted to and

absorption in work. Her results revealed that engagement was a multidimensional

construct, containing both an attention and absorption component.

Emotional Dimension

As Kahn (1990, 1992) observed, people are engaged in their role when they

exhibited behaviors that indicated the investment of personal energies and emotions.

Other scholars have suggested that the investment of emotions into ones role

performance exemplified role attachment (Kelman, 1958). According to Kelman, the

highest investment of personal energies into role performance is one that involved the

infusion of emotions. At this level, individuals are fully present in their task through an

emotional connection between themselves and their work. This view is consistent with

Kahn (1990), who noted that individuals exhibited engagement in their work roles when

emotionally immersed in an activity.

An individuals emotional experience at work often results from ones feelings of

enthusiasm, pride, and hostility. Prior research on the dominant dimensions of emotional

experiences of workers on the job has consistently identified two broad, general factors

labeled Positive Affect (PA), and Negative Affect (NA), (Watson, Clark & Tellegen,

1988; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). Combining pleasantness and energy,

Positive Affect is the degree to which an individual feels enthusiastic, active, and alert.

7/21/2019 rich_b

29/197

16

High PA is a state of high energy, full concentration, andpleasurable engagement. In

contrast, Negative Affect (NA) comprises distress, sluggishness, dullness, and

disengagement (Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Rothbards (2001) theoretical model of

engagement builds on Watson and Tellegens (1985) circumplex model of emotion.

Although, her results indicated that an individuals emotions affected the relationships

among attention, absorption, and engagement, Rothbard did not include an emotional

dimension in her conceptualization of engagement.

Watson and Tellegens approach to the dimensions of emotions as either Positive

Affect or Negative Affect has received criticism from other researchers. This criticism

centers around the rotation of factors on the affective circumplex advanced by Russell

(1980), Larson and Diener (1992). These researchers have postulated that the range of

Figure 1. Circumplex model of affect. From Promises and Problems With theCircumplex Model of Emotion, by R. J. Larson and E. Diener, in M. S. Clark (Ed.),1992,Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Emotion(Vol. 13, p. 31),Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

human affective states along the two primary axes is composed of dimensions rotated 45

7/21/2019 rich_b

30/197

17

from the hypothesized labeled hedonic tone/pleasantness and arousal/activation (See

Figure 1.). Research on affect has generally supported the former unipolar

conceptualization by Watson et al. 1988, in that emotions are made up of two broad-

based dimensions, Positive Affect and Negative Affect, that are independent dispositions

rather than opposite ends of a continuum (Barrett & Russell, 1998; Watson, Wiese,

Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999).

The PANAS. The Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS, Watson et al.,

1988) was developed to tap the theoretical dimension of Positive Affect and Negative

Affect. This structure is displayed in Figure 1. Designed to resemble Russell's (1980)

Figure 2. The two-dimensional structure of affect. From Toward a Consensual Structureof Mood, by D. Watson and A. Tellegen, 1985,Psychological Bulletin, 98,p. 221.Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association.

circumplex, Watson and Tellegen's structure depicted four bipolar dimensions that are

spaced 45 apart: Pleasantness (happy versus sad), Positive Affect (excited versus

sluggish),Engagement(aroused versus still), and Negative Affect (distressed versus

7/21/2019 rich_b

31/197

18

relaxed). In contrast to Russell, however, Watson and Tellegen emphasized the

importance of the Negative Affect and Positive Affect dimensions that are depicted by

the solid lines in Figure 2. Watson, Clark, and Tellegen used the phrases Positive Affect

and Negative Affect in a highly specific way (Watson & Tellegen, 1985, p. 233). Positive

Affect, is not the set of all positive affect states but is a specific subset, namely, those

states that are bothpleasant and activated. Their Negative Affect is not the set of all

negative affect states but a specific subset, namely, those states that are both unpleasant

and activated. These conceptual definitions (Watson & Tellegen, 1985) are reflected in

their operational definition. Watson and Tellegen's PA scale consists of a set of ten terms

(active, alert, attentive, determined, enthusiastic, excited, inspired, interested, proud,and

strong), each of which is high in both pleasantness and activation. Conversely, their NA

scale consists of a set of ten terms (afraid, scared, nervous, jittery, irritable, hostile,

guilty, ashamed, upset, and distressed), each of which is both unpleasant and high (or

neutral) in activation.

Trait Affect and State Affect. Affect is divided into two basic categories: trait

affect and state affect. Trait affect (Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986) is a long term, stable

predisposition of individuals to perceive the world around them as either positive or

negative. Trait affect does not need a specific target but rather is a generalized tendency

toward having a certain level of positivity or negativity, while state affect consists of

short-term affective reactions. Components of the five-factor model of personality

(Watson & Clark 1992) have labeled the personality traits of neuroticism or Negative

Affect, and extroversion or Positive Affect as temperaments or affective dispositions

(Watson, 2000). Individuals high in neuroticism or NA are prone to experience negative

7/21/2019 rich_b

32/197

19

mood states such as depression, hostility, and anxiety, while individuals high in

extraversion or PA are prone to positive mood states such as enthusiasm, energy, and

activity. Research has shown that job attitudes such as job satisfaction are influenced by

affective dispositions (Judge, 1992; Schaubroeck, Judge & Taylor, 1998). These results

have been supported by meta-analytical findings that have shown that job satisfaction

correlates positively (r= .49) with positive affectivity and negatively (r= -.33) with

negative affectivity (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Additional support for the

relationship between affect and job-related attitudes can be found in Thoresen, Kaplan,

Barsky, Warren, and de Chermont's (2003) meta-analysis, where the mean corrected

population correlations between state and trait affect and job satisfaction (.34),

organizational commitment (.35), turnover intentions (-.17), and dimensions of job

burnout were significant (emotional exhaustion .32, and depersonalization -.27).

Mood and Emotions. State affects or short-term affective reactions, are divided

into two general categories: moods and emotions. The primary difference between these

two state affects is in their intensity, duration, and specificity. Emotions are intense,

relatively short-term affective reactions to a specific environmental stimulus (Izard,

1993), while moods are less intense and longer lasting and do not have a specific

environmental trigger (Frijda, 1993; Frijda & Mesquita, 1994). Most emotional theories

support the link between specific emotions and specific types of behavior (Fredrickson,

1998; Levenson, 1994), such as engagement. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggested

that emotions in the work place may be more relevant to job satisfaction than are moods.

Emotions vary in their intensity and are an important dimension of engagement, since

7/21/2019 rich_b

33/197

20

emotional intensity has been shown to influence cognitive and motivational arousal

(Martindale, 1981, 1995; Weiss & Cropanzano 1996).

Past research that has investigated the relationship between positive emotions and

individual outcomes has shown that positive emotions widen the scope of attention

(Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), and increase creativity (Isen, Daubman & Nowicki,

1987). In addition, positive emotions have been shown to improve creative problem

solving (e.g., Estrada, Young, & Isen, 1994; Greene & Noice, 1988; Isen, Johnson,

Mertz, & Robinson, 1985), and increase a person's ability to organize ideas and access

alternative cognitive perspectives (Isen & Geva, 1987; Isen & Means, 1983; Isen,

Nygren, & Ashby, 1988; Isen, Rosenzweig, & Young, 1991). Finally, positive emotions

also have been shown to facilitate flexible, effective problem solving, good decision

making, clear thinking, and accurate evaluations of events (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997;

Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997; Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985; Isen, Shalker,

Clark, & Karp, 1978).

Based on these findings, a substantial body of psychological research has shown

that a persons emotions influence job attitudes. The role of emotion is to energize the

individual physiologically and to induce appropriate action (Wallbott & Scherer, 1989).

The common theme underlying this research is one of integration, in that the individuals

engagement in their role is not possible without an emotional connection. Thus, the

traditional focus of work motivation on behavior and cognitions is limited, since it only

addresses part of the individual, his or her hands and mind, but not his or her heart.

Emotions are thus asine qua nonof engagement.

7/21/2019 rich_b

34/197

21

In the preceding sections, Kahns (1990) conceptualization of job engagement and

its proposed sub-dimensions of physical, cognitive, and emotional were reviewed.

Relevant empirical and theoretical support for Kahns conceptualization of engagement

was developed from the work of Kelman (1958) and Campbell (1963), whose tripartite

definition of attitudes provided support for the conceptualization of engagement as a

three-dimensional construct. The work of Kanfer (1990), Porter and Lawler (1968), and

Vroom (1964) provided a theoretical basis to support the physical sub-dimension of

engagement and the conceptualization of effort. The work of Rothbard (2001), Kanfer

and Ackerman (1989), and Locke and Latham (1990) provided support for including the

two sub-dimensions of attention and absorption in the conceptualization of the cognitive

aspect of engagement. Finally, research supporting the emotional dimension of

engagement was suggested by the work of Rothbard (2001), Watson, Clark, and Tellegen

(1988).

Research Applying Kahns Engagement Theory. Despite the intuitive appeal of

Kahns theory and the recent increased attention to job engagement (Gallup, 2005), only

one published study has empirically examined Kahns ethnographic work on

engagement. May, Gilson and Harter (2004) developed a twenty-four item scale to assess

Kahns three dimensions of engagement (i.e., physical, emotional, and cognitive).

However, factor analysis failed to yield three distinct and reliable dimensions. Instead,

four factors emerged, possibly suggesting that these twenty-four items did not concisely

capture Kahns theoretical conceptualization of engagement. These results may have

been due to the selection of items May et al. used to represent the three dimensions of

engagement. Most importantly, many of their scale items incorporate considerable

7/21/2019 rich_b

35/197

22

extraneous conceptual content. For example, items included under the physical dimension

of engagement include: I stay until the job is done and I take work home to do. These

items are intended to tap the core meaning of the physical dimension of engagement (i.e.,

investment of personal energies into role performance); however, they include

motivational elements (e.g., willingness to invest effort) and persistence elements (e.g.,

persistence in the investment of effort). Additionally, items contained in the cognitive

dimension scale which are to measure the degree to which one devoted attention to, and

is absorbed in a job appear to measure ones experience of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,

1990). For example, the items Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about

everything else, and Time passes quickly when I perform my job assesses ones state

of flow. As conceptualized by Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990), flow is as a unique,short-

termpeak experience during which people narrow their attention to specific stimuli, and

little conscious control is necessary for their actions. This short-term highly focused flow

experience is theoretically distinct from Kahns characterization of the cognitive

dimension of engagement, which he suggested is as an individualspersistent attention to

and absorption in a job.

Finally, May et al.s measurement of the emotional dimension of engagement

overlaps with the major dimensions of job involvement (Kanungo, 1982), i.e., the

importance of work to ones total self-image (Brown, 1996) as indicated by the item:

My own feelings are affected by how well I perform my job. Taken together these

methodological problems may have prevented May from identifying three distinct

dimensions of engagement. In light of these findings, a construct valid scale of

engagement based on Kahns (1990) work has not been published.

7/21/2019 rich_b

36/197

23

In the next section, the multidimensionality of job engagement is discussed as well

as the possibility job engagement is a higher-order factor indicated by three-lower order

dimensions.

Job Engagement as a Higher-Order Factor

As discussed earlier, the theoretical starting point for the definition of job

engagement is the work of Kahn, who defined engagement as the harnessing of

organizational members selves to their work roles. In engagement, people employ and

express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance

(Kahn, 1990: 694). From Kahns definition, engagement is a comprehensive

multidimensional construct that describes an individuals affective expression with and

motivational response to ones job.

A construct is multidimensional when it refers to several distinct but related

dimensions that are treated as a single theoretical concept (Law, Wong, & Mobley,

1998). Researchers have emphasized the need for well operationalized constructs that

include both the specifications of the relationships between the overall construct and its

dimensions. Without specifying these relationships, researchers asserted that the various

dimensions are an amalgamation of related variables. Law et al. (1998) proposed three

multidimensional models that specify the direction of the relationship between the

construct and its dimensions and distinguishing among them on the basis of whether the

multidimensional construct exists at a deeper level, or at a more embedded level than its

dimensions, or at the same level, or as a combination of the dimensions. In what Law et

al. (1998) referred to as the latent model, the multidimensional construct is unobservable

or latent and underlies the dimensions (see Figure 3). In this model, the multidimensional

7/21/2019 rich_b

37/197

24

construct exists as a higher-order latent factor with the relationships flowing from the

construct to its dimensions.

Job Engagement

CognitiveEmotionalPhysical

Figure 3. Latent model of multidimensional construct

Latent multidimensional constructs reside at a higher level of conceptual

abstraction than their component dimensions. Law et al. (1998) used general mental

ability (GMA) as an example of a latent multidimensional construct. Since GMA is

reflected in an individuals verbal, quantitative, and reasoning skills, each of the skills is

representative but smaller in scope than GMA. Thus, a more complete view of GMA is

found by examining how it is reflected in its three component dimensions. Accordingly,

GMA is at a higher level of abstraction than its component dimensions. Core self-

evaluations, the fundamental assessments that people make about their worthiness,

competence, and capabilities (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002), is also an example

of a latent multidimensional construct reflected by four separate but related concepts: (a)

self-esteem; (b) generalized self-efficacy; (c) locus of control; and (d) emotional stability.

Alternatively, if a multidimensional construct exists at the same level as its

dimensions, it can be defined by a profile model or an aggregate model, depending on

whether the dimensions can be algebraically combined to form an overall representation

of the construct (Law et al., 1998). In this model, the relationships flows from the

dimensions to the construct and are labeled aggregate because they aggregate or combine

7/21/2019 rich_b

38/197

25

specific dimensions into a general construct. Aggregate multidimensional constructs are

causedby their component dimensions and are similar in terms of conceptual level (see

Figure 4).

Job Engagement

CognitiveEmotionalPhysical

Figure 4. Aggregate model of multidimensional construct

As such, aggregate multidimensional constructs are caused by, or have meaning because

of their dimensions (cf. Bollen & Ting, 2000). The dimensions of an aggregate construct

are analogous to formative measures, which form or induce a construct (Bollen &

Lennox, 1991; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000). However, whereas formative measures are

observed variables, the dimensions of an aggregate construct are themselves constructs

conceived as specific components of the general construct they collectively constitute.

Aggregate constructs are widespread in management research. For example, overall

job satisfaction (Lawler, 1983) is conceptualized as a composite of satisfaction with

specific job facets, such as pay, promotions, supervision, coworkers, and the work itself

(Locke, 1976; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969; Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979), and job

performance is viewed as the combination of performance on specific tasks (Murphy &

Shiarella, 1997). In these multidimensional constructs, overall job satisfaction and job

performance cannot be observed directly; rather, they are composites given meaning by

their component facets. In both the latent and aggregate cases, the underlying

7/21/2019 rich_b

39/197

26

multidimensional construct is not measured directly, but instead represents the conceptual

(and empirical) variance common to the underlying dimensions (cf. Judge et al., 2002).

The third type of multidimensional construct defined by Law, Wong, and Mobley

(1998) is the profile model. Here, the construct exists at the same level as its dimensions.

Because of their theoretical nature, these constructs are not formed by various algebraic

combinations of their dimensions. Instead, a profile model construct is interpreted by the

various levels of their dimensions. Law et al. (1998) provided the example of the Big

Five personality scale (McCrae & Costa, 1989) as an example of a profile model. In this

model, the construct of personality is represented by different profile combinations of the

personality dimensions of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness, because it is theoretically meaningless to algebraically aggregate the

five personality dimensions.

Although, Kahn did not make any explicit statements concerning the abstract

nature of engagement, it is apparent from Kahns definition of engagement that it has

meaning only when the component dimensions are considered collectively. In other

words, job engagement is reflected in the investment of physical, cognitive, and

emotional energy into ones job. This investment of personal energies is caused by job

engagement rather than job engagement being caused by the investment of personal

energies. Thus, the multidimensional nature of job engagement is hypothesized to

represent the directional and conceptual characteristics of a latent multidimensional

construct that exists at a higher level of abstraction than its component dimensions Thus,

the directionality of the relations is reflective (Fig. 3) rather than causal (Fig. 4). As a

latent or a higher-order factor, job engagement is reflected in an individuals investment

7/21/2019 rich_b

40/197

27

of energies into the three lower-order dimensions. These lower-order dimensions are thus

representative of ones job engagement, but smaller in scope than job engagement as a

whole. As a reflection of a higher-order construct, the three dimensions of physical,

cognitive, and emotional are suggested to be correlated because they are caused by the

higher-order job engagement construct (Bollen & Lennox, 1991). Diagrammatically, the

multidimensional construct of engagement is depicted in Figure 5.

Physical

Emotional Cognitive

Job Engagement

Figure 5. Diagram of the commonalities among the three dimensions of job engagement

As conceptualized, job engagement and its relationship with its dimensions are

similar to that of core self-evaluations developed by Judge et al. (2002). These

researchers viewed core self-evaluation as a construct that encompassed the conceptual

commonalities of four component dimensions. Judge and his colleagues noted that

psychologists have long debated the value of conceptualizing and measuring

psychological phenomena in terms of very narrow concepts, rather than as aggregates

that represents the conceptual and empirical commonalities of multiple narrower

concepts. This bandwidth-fidelity paradox (John, Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991) and the

debate over broad versus specific constructs caused Cronbach (1956) to label

psychologists as either splittersthose who make fine distinctions among psychological

concepts by splitting them into constituent elements, or lumpersthose who aggregate

concepts by combining narrow concepts into broader ones. Judge and colleagues argued

7/21/2019 rich_b

41/197

28

that appropriate aggregates consolidated commonalities among concepts and thus

eliminated conceptual and operational redundancy (Judge et al., 2002).

In other words, effective aggregates avoided slicing conceptual domains into even

smaller elements; instead, they produced a more parsimonious yet complete view of a

given phenomenon. Job engagement serves this role as it encompassed the conceptual

commonalities of emotions, attention, absorption, and effort that lead to the embracement

of ones job. Asserting that job engagement represented a higher-order construct

encompassing the commonality of three lower-order dimensions implies the dimensions

collectively reflects ones job engagement.

As conceptualized, job engagement represents a broad overall job attitude whose

dimensions shared a single etiology. The conceptualization of job engagement answers

the call by Judge et al., (2001) for research on the relationships of job attitudes to broader

behavioral criteria (Judge et al., 2001, p. 392). Harrison, Newman, and Roth (2006) have

recently supported the proposition that it is important to conceptualize an individuals

overall job attitudes at a broader level, or a higher level of conceptualization. By thinking

of behavioral criteria at a broad level of generality, a more complete understanding of

work behaviors is possible. These researchers suggested that job satisfaction and

organizational commitment share a conceptual domain, and thus, are indicators of an

underlying, overall job attitude that assessed a core evaluation of ones job experience

(Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006, p. 306).Based on the foregoing, I hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1:Job engagement is a higher-order factor that is indicated by three

lower-order dimensions: physical, cognitive, and emotional.

7/21/2019 rich_b

42/197

29

Construct Validity of a New Job Engagement Scale

A primary purpose of this dissertation is to define, develop, and validate an

engagement scale based on Kahns three dimensions of engagement. Formal construct

definition and subsequent validation are necessary before substantive research can be

conducted. Schwab (1980) suggested that construct validation is particularly important at

the early stages of conceptual development because:

Substantive research relative to construct validation has been overemphasized inorganizational behavior. As a consequence, our knowledge of substantiverelationships is not as great as is often believed, and not as great as would be true ifthe idea of construct validity received greater attention. Investigators [should]sequence their research activities so that construct validity is considered beforesubstantive research is performed (Schwab, 1980, p. 4).

Additionally, construct validation is important because, as Schwab has also noted,

establishing the substantive validity of a construct before examining its construct validity

may lead to the accumulation of knowledge that later must be discarded: organizational

behavior has suffered because investigators have not accorded construct validity the same

deference as substantive validity (Schwab, 1980, p. 34).

Nunnally (1978) offered three steps to construct validation: (1) specify the domain

of the construct (i.e., content validity), (2) assure that the new construct relates

predictably to other measures purporting to measure the same construct, and (3) assure

that it relates predictably to other relevant constructs. In response to Nunnallys first

condition, the three elements of engagement identified by Kahn (1990) specify the

content domain of engagement and were discussed above. In response to Nunnallys

second condition, the next section investigates and makes conceptual distinctions

between job engagement and the measures of job involvement, job satisfaction, and

7/21/2019 rich_b

43/197

30

intrinsic motivation in an effort to develop the theoretical discriminant validity of job

engagement.

Discriminant Validity of Job Engagement

Discriminant validity is the extent to which measures of different variables are

distinct (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In the present study, it is important to examine

whether job engagement is a unique construct and thus has the potential to significantly

contribute to our understanding of job attitudes, or if attitudes regarding job engagement

are adequately captured by the existing measures of job involvement, job satisfaction, and

intrinsic motivation.

Job Involvement

Since Allport (1943) first proposed job involvement as a job attitude, it has been

the subject of more than 1,338 articles in the PsychINFO database. Despite this attention,

there exists today a measurement cacophony and confusion between conceptual and

operational definitions of job involvement (Blau, 1985; Brown, 1996; Kanungo, 1982;

Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Reeve & Smith, 2001; Saal, 1978; Saleh & Hosek, 1976).

Confusion in the literature arises from the ambiguity regarding the theoretical definition

of job involvement. In particular, a review of the literature revealed four distinct

conceptualizations of job involvement: (1) work as a central life interest; (2) active

participation in the job; (3) performance as central to self-esteem; and (4) performance as

consistent with self-concept (Kanungo, 1982; Saleh & Hosek, 1976). An overview of

each conceptualization of job involvement is discussed next.

The Meaning of Job Involvement.Work as a central life interest views job

involvement as a multidimensional construct that assessed the degree to which one

perceives the total work situation to be important to ones identity and a central part of

7/21/2019 rich_b

44/197

31

ones life. This attitude arises from the individuals work because of the opportunity it

affords them to satisfy important needs (Dubin, 1956; Lawler & Hall, 1970). Under this

view, ones job is perceived to be the main source of need satisfaction versus non-job-

oriented activities (Blau, 1985).

Active participation in the job conceptualizes job involvement as the degree to

which an employee is participating in his or her job and meeting such needs as prestige

and autonomy (Blau, 1985). In this conceptualization, job involvement is dependant on

the extent to which an individual seeks some self-expression and actualization in his

work or on the opportunity to make job decisions, the feeling of contribution to a

success, the chance to set ones own work pace and self determination (Saleh & Hosek,

1976). The third approach, performance as central to self-esteem, considers job

involvement as central to self-esteem (Gurin, Veroff & Feld, 1960; French & Kahn,

1962). For example, under this conceptualization, job involvement is the degree to which

the employees perceive their job performance as central to their sense of worth (Siegel,

1969).

Job involvement conceptualized as consistent with self-concept is based on the

work of Vroom (1962, 1964), who defined job involvement as the degree to which

employees perceive their job performance as consistent with characteristics central to

their self-concept. According to Saleh and Hosek (1976), the difference between the third

and fourth conceptualization is that while Vroom considered the consistency of

performance with the existing self-conception, French and Kahn emphasized the

consistency with the valued self-conception (Saleh & Hosek, 1976, p. 215). This lack of

7/21/2019 rich_b

45/197

32

a unified definition of what constitutes the domain of the construct of job involvement led

Kanungo (1982, p. 341) to observe the following:

Past psychological research (e.g., Lodahl and Kejner, 1965; Rabinowitz and Hall,

1977; Saleh and Hosek, 1976) in the area of job involvement is fraught withproblems of conceptual ambiguity and measurement inadequacies. The majorsource of conceptual ambiguity lies in the use of the construct job involvementthat carries excess meaning. Consequently, the techniques developed to measurethe construct suffer from the problems of construct validity. Without adequateconstruct validity, inferences based on the data on job involvement provided byexisting instruments are often misleading and difficult to interpret (Kanungo, 1982,p. 341).

A review of the four conceptualizations above provide credibility to the argument

put forth by Kanungo (1982) that job involvement has been made ambiguous by multiple

meanings. In support of his assertions, Kanungo offered the following four observations:

(1) past conceptualizations of job involvement have confounded the construct with the

concept of intrinsic motivation on the job; (2) the psychological state of job involvement

and its subsequent effects has been confounded with the antecedents of job involvement;

(3) job involvement has been operationalized by scale items as both a cognitive and an

affective state; and (4) conceptualizations of job involvement have confused specific or

particular job contexts with generalized work conditions. Involvement in a specific job

may not be the same thing as involvement with work in general. The former is a

descriptive belief of the present job, focusing on the ability of the job to fulfill present

needs. The latter is a normative belief held by the individual concerning the value of

work in ones life. Kanungo suggested this normative belief is the result of past

socialization on the goodness of work (Kanungo, 1982). Despite this concern over

construct validity, several job involvement scales exist and continue to be used in

research on work attitudes and behaviors.

7/21/2019 rich_b

46/197

33

Measurement of Job Involvement.A review of the extant literature revealed three

instruments used to measure job involvement. The most widely used job involvement

scale is that of Lodahl and Kejner (1965), who have conceptualized job involvement in

three distinct ways. First, drawing from the work by Dubin (1958, 1961), job

involvement is defined as the degree to which a person is identified psychologically

with his work, or the importance of work to his total self-image (p.24). A second

dimension of Lodahl and Kejners job involvement scale is defined as the internalization

of values about the goodness of work or the importance of work in the worth of the

person (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965, p. 24). This dimension purports to measure the ease to

which a person can be socialized into an organization, and finally, stemming from the

work of Allport (1943), French and Kahn (1962), and Vroom (1962), the degree to

which a persons work performance affects his self-esteem (p. 25). Lodahl and Kejner

viewed job involvement more a function of the person than of the job. That is, job

involvement is an individual difference variable.

Because Lodahl and Kejner did not operationalize a single, clearly defined

conceptualization of job involvement, researchers have used multiple conceptual

dimensions in the measurement of job involvement (Ramsey, Lassk, & Marshall, 1995).

This inconsistency has resulted in an increase in the conceptual fuzziness of the construct

(Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). For example, the item I live, eat and breath my job

represents a persons psychological identification with the joba component of self-

image (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). The item sometimes Id like to kick myself for the

mistakes I make at work is representative of a persons intrinsic motivation at work for

fulfilling self-esteem needs. This confusion has been accentuated by researchers who

7/21/2019 rich_b

47/197

34

have frequently used reduced versions of the Lodahl and Kejner scale without regard for

the conceptual meaning the items were intended to tap. This piece-meal application of

the Lodahl and Kejner job involvement scale prompted Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) to

state:

[A]lthough Lodahl and Kejners factor analysis revealed the multidimensionalnature of job involvement, these different dimensions have never been clearlyidentified and labeled. [R]esearchers have often taken a few items . . . with noconsideration of what factor they loaded on, and then called their scale jobinvolvement. To date there is still no agreement on just what the Lodahl andKejner job involvement scale really is! (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977, p. 270).

A number of other criticisms have been expressed in the literature concerning

Lodahl and Kejners (1965) scale. For example, Ramsey, Lassk, and Marshal (1995)

noted several weaknesses, such as unstable dimensionality and difficulty in interpreting

the psychometric properties of the scale and Reeve and Smith (2001) observed that the

use of a single composite score derived from a multidimensional job involvement scale

can lead to inconclusive and contradictory results. These researchers have argued that

some of the 20 items contained in Lodahl and Kejners scale are not relevant, or tap

irrelevant construct space, thus bringing in psychological noise. Finally, Brown (1996)

and Paullay, Alliger, and Stone-Romero (1994) argued that Lodahl and Kejners measure

is conceptually flawed because it confounded job involvement with work centrality, the

individuals view that work is a main component of her life.

Distinction Between Job Involvement and Work Centrality.With its foundation

in Dubin's (1956) formulation of work as a central life interest, work centrality has its

genesis in Weber's (1930) Protestant work ethic theory and is a belief held by individuals

that their work role is an important and central part of their lives. Work centrality is

posited to be formed by the socialization of the individual. People learned to value work

7/21/2019 rich_b

48/197

35

from their families, friends, religion, or culture. For example, Kanungo (1982) suggested

that socialization with the Protestant work ethic is one way in which individuals learned

to value work, but that it is not the only way. Individuals may come to believe, through

their own experiences, that work is to them a central component of their life (Paullay et

al., 1994). According to Diefendorff et al. (2002), work centrality is broader in scope than

job involvement, since it reflects an individuals belief in the importance of work in one's

life, irrespective of one's current job. Thus, a person could report a low level of work

centrality, indicating that work is not one of the most important things in his or her life,

and also report a high level of job involvement. One item from the Lodahl and Kejner

(1965) job involvement scale that reflects a persons work centrality stated, The most

important things that happen to me involve my work. This item, according to

Diefendorff et al. (2002), assessed the relative importance of work compared to other

aspects of individuals' lives, rather than how immersed people are in their present jobs (p.

95). Work centrality is also regarded as a relatively stable attitude toward the work

domain that is not responsive to conditions in a particular work setting (Kanungo, 1982;

Paullay et al., 1994). Taken together, the preceding critique highlights the considerable

confusion concerning the conceptual and operational distinctions contained in the Lodahl

and Kejners job involvement scale.

Lawler and Hall (1970), drawing on the work of Lodahl and Kejner (1965),

proposed a second interpretation of job involvement by conceptualizing job involvement

as the psychological identification with ones work and the degree to which the job

situation is central to the person and his identity (Lawler & Hall, 1970), pp. 310 - 311).

Lawler and Hall suggested that job involvement was the result of individuals perceiving

7/21/2019 rich_b

49/197

36

their total work situation to be an important part of their life, and to be central to their

identity because of the opportunity it affords them to satisfy important needs. According

to Brown (1996), this measure of job involvement includes considerable extraneous

conceptual content, tapping cognitive and affective states, intrinsic motivation, as well as

an individual's involvement in work in general-(work centrality) and in a specific job-(job

involvement), thus confounding work centrality with the need satisfaction of job

involvement. This confusion is represented in the following items from the Lawler and

Hall job involvement scale: I live, eat and breathe my job and Doing my job well

increases my feeling of self-esteem. Lawler and Hall attempted to differentiate their job

involvement scale from job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. However, many of the

relationships they found between these constructs were statistically significant, which the

authors contributed to restriction in the range in the studies sample of research scientist

(Lawler & Hall, 1970).

Kanungo (1982) developed a third measure of job involvement in response to the

conceptual confusion of the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) scale. Kanungos job involvement

scale was operationalized as a persons psychological identification with work. As Brown

(1996) suggested, this approach has become the accepted definition.

Kanungo's [job involvement scale] is based on the clearest and most preciseconceptualization of the construct. It clearly identifies the core meaning of theconstruct as a cognitive state of the individual, is not contaminated by itemstapping concepts outside of this core meaning, and separates job involvement fromantecedent and consequent constructs (Brown, 1996, p. 236).

Kanungo (1982) defined job involvement as the "cognitive belief state" or the

psychological identification" individuals have with their jobs and thus is distinguished

from the affect laden measures of job satisfaction (pp. 76-7). Kanungos approach to job

involvement is based on a motivational framework that views alienation and involvement

7/21/2019 rich_b

50/197

37

in ones job as bipolar states of the same phenomenon, with alienation representing the

negative end and involvement the positive end of the conceptual continuum. According

to Kanungo, involvement should be directly measured in terms of the individuals

cognitions about their identification with work, with identification depending on both the

saliency of needs and the perception about the need-satisfying potentialities of work.

Kanungo (1982, p. 342) also distinguished between job involvement and work

involvement, with job involvement being a specific belief regarding ones relationship

with ones present job, as opposed to a normative belief toward work in general.

Kanungos conceptualization and measurement of job involvement is an

improvement upon the measures